0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Isiah Belin: Positive and negative freedom.QuoteOkay – firstly ,the man’s name was Isaiah BerlinA negative freedom is a freedom under constraints. and a positive freedom is a freedom without constraints.QuoteNo. The two can be thought of as “freedom to do …” and “freedom from….” positive liberty is the opportunity and actual abibilty to do what one desires. Negative liberty is an absence of external hindrances to completing one’s desired course of action —specifically, when there is no interferences by other people. We live in a negative freedom society, we are free with certain constraints placed upon us, Why because positive freedoms cause revolutions, and so to prevent revolution constraints are placed upon us- and so we live in a negative freedom society.Quote Yes, but it is hard to imagine a society that is based on universal positive freedomsIdeas is what Belin believes causes ultimately revolution, as such our ideas must be constrained- for if they are not a revolution could happen.QuoteDon’t know where you got this from – it’s not Berlin. Berlin discussed at length clashes of values and value pluralism but he did not advocate the constraint of ideas Right, now here is Joe having ideas that should be constrained.Step one, take his mind off it (circus). Doesn't work he carries on thinkingStep two, keep him busy(active circus) employment as an agent for the pig forexample-Doesnt workStep three, tell him its a silly idea- doesn't workPlease note the old way was to kill them- for being revolutionaries- even though they dont know that.QuoteWell, of course, no one ever criticised the status quo or formulated different philosophies of government in the past…hang on a second. It is a tragedy that many have been killed for espousing their ideas – but it would be an equal tragedy to ignore history and pretend that we have always lived under such totalitarianism that alternative theories are absent.So now all different ways of trying to stop them do not work.Now they start drugging them- in negative freedom terms they are crazy and going against the security of the system, are they crazy? no they are just freely thinking and nothing else.Here we come to presumptive consent.They drug you, and the person starts to act funny, then they go to your guardian and say: "You son, husband, wife etc is acting rather funny, would you give us permission to help them? The guardian says yes you are right they are acting funny, OK" after of course a discussion of what that entails(how honest are those that ask for presumptive consent? do not forget that the guardian is also under the constraint of negative freedom and so blind).They then drug the crap out of you, and you loose it completely and get bundled off to a mentel home- the people that got presumptive consent tell your guardian "Well we tried our best to help them but clearlywe didnt catch them soon enought to stop the inevitable"Then placed on prescription drugs the person becomes a drulling zombie, a slow thinker, a simpleton, and that will be forever, for should they come off the drug and statrt thinking the same things again they will be put back on the meds, either way as soon as they come on to the list of "people that think too much"(revolutionaries- without knowing it) they will always be watched and monitored- for life till death- with no opportunity for escape from that- forever!And why does this all happen? Simply to protect the position of those that rule- for the problem with revolution is that those that rule would stop ruling and someone else would- negative freedom keeps those in charge, in charge. It entire purpose, no change those who rule over a negative free society rule forever- for there is never a revolution and so heads never change, except from father to son of course.QuoteYour conflation of the above argument with your rather strained notions of forms of liberty deflects from the power of this section. Your very dystopian view is, perhaps exaggerated in scope, but I think correct in direction and means. I think, in addition to your argument of state “medicalisation” of dissenters, the possibility should be considered of state use of criminalisation of those who question and threaten the equilibrium of society.See now why those that rule love Berlin, he keeps them on top forever.You add ideological slavery(captiaism) to this, along with shodocracy- you pretty much have the place you live in, an ideological prison and slave state, that anyone who opposes it- is removed one way or the other.QuoteI oppose the state regularly, sometimes it works others it doesn’t. your argument is a counsel of despair – I reject the idea of the ideological hegemony, it is a powerful and enlightening concept but that does not make it a reality.SICK IS NOT THE WORD FOR THIS.AS for presumptive consent. What if the person that gives presumptive consent is an agent for those that are carring out, either the study or the drugging etc? And I think you can see there, especially when all guardians in a negative free society are blind- none of them can effectively decided properly and therefore- none of them can really give consent- the whole thing is a total sham and a lie. Just like the system itself!
Okay – firstly ,the man’s name was Isaiah Berlin
No. The two can be thought of as “freedom to do …” and “freedom from….” positive liberty is the opportunity and actual abibilty to do what one desires. Negative liberty is an absence of external hindrances to completing one’s desired course of action —specifically, when there is no interferences by other people.
Yes, but it is hard to imagine a society that is based on universal positive freedoms
Don’t know where you got this from – it’s not Berlin. Berlin discussed at length clashes of values and value pluralism but he did not advocate the constraint of ideas
Well, of course, no one ever criticised the status quo or formulated different philosophies of government in the past…hang on a second. It is a tragedy that many have been killed for espousing their ideas – but it would be an equal tragedy to ignore history and pretend that we have always lived under such totalitarianism that alternative theories are absent.
Your conflation of the above argument with your rather strained notions of forms of liberty deflects from the power of this section. Your very dystopian view is, perhaps exaggerated in scope, but I think correct in direction and means. I think, in addition to your argument of state “medicalisation” of dissenters, the possibility should be considered of state use of criminalisation of those who question and threaten the equilibrium of society.
I oppose the state regularly, sometimes it works others it doesn’t. your argument is a counsel of despair – I reject the idea of the ideological hegemony, it is a powerful and enlightening concept but that does not make it a reality.
BTW – did you notice this was a science forum? Matthew
Quote from: imatfaal on 11/08/2010 14:17:05BTW – did you notice this was a science forum? MatthewOh, come on - it *kind* of counts as 'Chat' []I reckon you must be secretly working for 'The Man', Matthew []
Quote from: Littlestone on 11/08/2010 13:04:30Isiah Belin: Positive and negative freedom.QuoteOkay – firstly ,the man’s name was Isaiah BerlinA negative freedom is a freedom under constraints. and a positive freedom is a freedom without constraints.QuoteNo. The two can be thought of as “freedom to do …” and “freedom from….” positive liberty is the opportunity and actual ability to do what one desires. Negative liberty is an absence of external hindrances to completing one’s desired course of action —specifically, when there is no interferences by other people.
Isiah Belin: Positive and negative freedom.QuoteOkay – firstly ,the man’s name was Isaiah BerlinA negative freedom is a freedom under constraints. and a positive freedom is a freedom without constraints.QuoteNo. The two can be thought of as “freedom to do …” and “freedom from….” positive liberty is the opportunity and actual ability to do what one desires. Negative liberty is an absence of external hindrances to completing one’s desired course of action —specifically, when there is no interferences by other people.
No. The two can be thought of as “freedom to do …” and “freedom from….” positive liberty is the opportunity and actual ability to do what one desires. Negative liberty is an absence of external hindrances to completing one’s desired course of action —specifically, when there is no interferences by other people.
We live in a negative freedom society, we are free with certain constraints placed upon us, Why because positive freedoms cause revolutions, and so to prevent revolution constraints are placed upon us- and so we live in a negative freedom society.Quote Yes, but it is hard to imagine a society that is based on universal positive freedoms
Ideas is what Berlin believes causes ultimately revolution, as such our ideas must be constrained- for if they are not a revolution could happen.QuoteDon't know where you got this from – it’s not Berlin. Berlin discussed at length clashes of values and value pluralism but he did not advocate the constraint of ideas
Don't know where you got this from – it’s not Berlin. Berlin discussed at length clashes of values and value pluralism but he did not advocate the constraint of ideas
Right, now here is Joe having ideas that should be constrained.Step one, take his mind off it (circus). Doesn't work he carries on thinkingStep two, keep him busy(active circus) employment as an agent for the pig forexample-Doesnt workStep three, tell him its a silly idea- doesn't workPlease note the old way was to kill them- for being revolutionaries- even though they dont know that.QuoteWell, of course, no one ever criticised the status quo or formulated different philosophies of government in the past…hang on a second. It is a tragedy that many have been killed for espousing their ideas – but it would be an equal tragedy to ignore history and pretend that we have always lived under such totalitarianism that alternative theories are absent.
So now all different ways of trying to stop them do not work.Now they start drugging them- in negative freedom terms they are crazy and going against the security of the system, are they crazy? no they are just freely thinking and nothing else.Here we come to presumptive consent.They drug you, and the person starts to act funny, then they go to your guardian and say: "You son, husband, wife etc is acting rather funny, would you give us permission to help them? The guardian says yes you are right they are acting funny, OK" after of course a discussion of what that entails(how honest are those that ask for presumptive consent? do not forget that the guardian is also under the constraint of negative freedom and so blind).They then drug the crap out of you, and you loose it completely and get bundled off to a mentel home- the people that got presumptive consent tell your guardian "Well we tried our best to help them but clearlywe didnt catch them soon enought to stop the inevitable"Then placed on prescription drugs the person becomes a drulling zombie, a slow thinker, a simpleton, and that will be forever, for should they come off the drug and start thinking the same things again they will be put back on the meds, either way as soon as they come on to the list of "people that think too much"(revolutionaries- without knowing it) they will always be watched and monitored- for life till death- with no opportunity for escape from that- forever!And why does this all happen? Simply to protect the position of those that rule- for the problem with revolution is that those that rule would stop ruling and someone else would- negative freedom keeps those in charge, in charge. It entire purpose, no change those who rule over a negative free society rule forever- for there is never a revolution and so heads never change, except from father to son of course.QuoteYour conflation of the above argument with your rather strained notions of forms of liberty deflects from the power of this section. Your very dystopian view is, perhaps exaggerated in scope, but I think correct in direction and means. I think, in addition to your argument of state “medicalisation” of dissenters, the possibility should be considered of state use of criminalisation of those who question and threaten the equilibrium of society.
See now why those that rule love Berlin, he keeps them on top forever.You add ideological slavery(capitalism) to this, along with shodocracy- you pretty much have the place you live in, an ideological prison and slave state, that anyone who opposes it- is removed one way or the other.QuoteI oppose the state regularly, sometimes it works others it doesn’t. your argument is a counsel of despair – I reject the idea of the ideological hegemony, it is a powerful and enlightening concept but that does not make it a reality.
SICK IS NOT THE WORD FOR THIS.AS for presumptive consent. What if the person that gives presumptive consent is an agent for those that are carring out, either the study or the drugging etc? And I think you can see there, especially when all guardians in a negative free society are blind- none of them can effectively decided properly and therefore- none of them can really give consent- the whole thing is a total sham and a lie. Just like the system itself!
Matthew
there are not to many social scientists among us so you may not get the responses you seek. []
I'm an anti-social scientist. Does that count?
Quote from: imatfaal on 11/08/2010 14:17:05BTW did you notice this was a science forum? MatthewOh, come on - it *kind* of counts as 'Chat' []I reckon you must be secretly working for 'The Man', Matthew []
BTW did you notice this was a science forum? Matthew
Ok, I will run with this for now... few questions for you...1) Why do you feel the need to make all aware? What do you hope this will achieve?
2) Do you see utopianism as a better form of society to that which we have now? Where does meritocracy fit in with your views?
3) Your points rely both deviance and challenge to authoritarian 'state' or 'system'. If we have true freedom of expression and 'all forms of thinking respected' then deviance would become normality, a situation we are programmed to abhor in other 'less civilised' countries.
Social science is fine here IMO, however there are not to many social scientists among us so you may not get the responses you seek. []
t is complete assumption to say that should people become free completely to think that they would all rebel against those in charge. If those who ruled acted justly their would be no racional grounds to do so.- YOU ARE SCARE MONGERING ON THEIR BEHALF!
Quote t is complete assumption to say that should people become free completely to think that they would all rebel against those in charge. If those who ruled acted justly their would be no racional grounds to do so.- YOU ARE SCARE MONGERING ON THEIR BEHALF! Er... yeah.. Where have you dug all this up from? I studied social science for 8 yrs before coming over to the dark side of traditional science, hence my interest in your posts, and my particular questions. To promote the theories in the way you are, it is usually beneficial to have first read up fully on both social theory, the history behind it and current thinking. Passion for a subject is admirable, but don't let it blind you to what has been before and since. If you like, I can point you in a good direction, but I do not want to appear presumptuous. Littlestone, do you like rhubarb crumble and custard?
As a theoretical question - how can one discern differences between living in an all-encompassing repressive ideological hegemony as described by Littlestone and living under paranoid delusions with a very real belief of above hegemonic state?
When a completely pervasive state wielding ideological control is posited we end up in a morpheus/red or blue pill scenario. Every statement can be validly challenged by the opposing viewpoint; "you would say that because you are ideologically constrained/suffering from delusions" (delete as applicable).
Oh yeah, and do you like rhubarb crumble and custard? It is an important question...
All societies have rules, whether a modern capitalist state or a hunter-gatherer tribe. The rules are either tacitly or formally agreed and generally imposed on all the society's members with some penalty for those who do not follow these rules. Acceptance of the rules is necessary to remain a member of that society.Quote That is spot on, my reference to Littlestone about deviance was in reference to that. Most of our founding laws are based on social norms, to go against that is deviance. To allow positive-freedom as in LS first post would go against the laws, the laws that LS has put forward as controlling us. Based on that supposition, I could use the emotive crime of paedophillia, and argue that it should not be a crime as it is a way of thinking, that is controlled. If we are to have a 'free' society then paedophiles should be allowed to express themselves. Of course, it would be nonsense, not many people would support such a notion because it goes against norms, it is considered wholly deviant by society, a society that welcomes that particular law-it is a negative freedom. It is true that there are usually differentials of wealth and power within most societies and that there is a natural tendancy for cliques to develop and attempt to become self-propagating in order to maintain or improve their positions. An extreme case would be a master-slave system or a feudal arrangement of powerful wealthy overlords and a mass of poor serfs. Whilst it could be said that western democracies are far from being wholly fair, there are measures to try to restrict any self propagating cliques that may develop. Taxation being one such method with higher than proportionate rates for the higher paid. This being a balance to try to be acceptable to all members within the society, although complicated by being part of a world economy. There is encouragement to promote a meritocracy to allow free movement of those more able to become more wealthy. Whether this has worked well enough is open to debate but successive governments have tried to encourage this in most western democratic states. Quote Yes exactly, idealistically we live in a meritocracy, with the ability to move within social classes, and encouragement on self development. It is debatable on a squillion different levels, have governments encouraged a meritocratic view, is movement within class structure achievable, is the way class is defined correct, the glass ceiling, why does society idolise the mediocre but ignore true achievement, self-fulfilling prophecy blah blah blah I could go on for hours-but I am mindful this is a chat section [] The concept of paying people for their effort rather that their success may be less discriminatory to the less able, but has not proved wholly successful in the long term. Unfortunately, measuring how hard someone is trying (as opposed to succeeding) in a pursuit is not practical, and the tendancy was to effectively discourage those who would make the best contribution to the society as a whole (why should they bother?). So, if I get the overall drift, the problem that society does have a way of "reacting" to individuals who do not comply is really to be expected and part of living with other humans, whatever the society. Quote I rather feel I have missed out on all the drugging that has been going on according to LS.. [] Unless of course it is refeering tot he control of thought perpetuated by media but I don't think it is that subtle. I particularly like rhubarb crumble and custard BTW.Quote Then you are humbly invited to join the cult []
That is spot on, my reference to Littlestone about deviance was in reference to that. Most of our founding laws are based on social norms, to go against that is deviance. To allow positive-freedom as in LS first post would go against the laws, the laws that LS has put forward as controlling us. Based on that supposition, I could use the emotive crime of paedophillia, and argue that it should not be a crime as it is a way of thinking, that is controlled. If we are to have a 'free' society then paedophiles should be allowed to express themselves. Of course, it would be nonsense, not many people would support such a notion because it goes against norms, it is considered wholly deviant by society, a society that welcomes that particular law-it is a negative freedom.
Yes exactly, idealistically we live in a meritocracy, with the ability to move within social classes, and encouragement on self development. It is debatable on a squillion different levels, have governments encouraged a meritocratic view, is movement within class structure achievable, is the way class is defined correct, the glass ceiling, why does society idolise the mediocre but ignore true achievement, self-fulfilling prophecy blah blah blah I could go on for hours-but I am mindful this is a chat section []
I rather feel I have missed out on all the drugging that has been going on according to LS.. [] Unless of course it is refeering tot he control of thought perpetuated by media but I don't think it is that subtle.
Then you are humbly invited to join the cult []